cyckV4

686 PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Questions:
III
With these observations, I concur in the Court’s judgment.
1.) What is the actual holding of this case?
2.) Why is a business method not an abstract idea and thus unpatentable?
3.) Do we need patents on business methods in order to incentivize the production of
new business methods? Is the answer to that question relevant to whether they are
statutory subject matter as far as the Court is concerned? If it is, what countervailing
factors does the Court see that mitigate against a per se rule excluding business method
patents from statutory subject matter?
4.) Look back at the graphs on patent filing and litigation and the current state of the
patent system in Chapter 17. To what extent do those concerns motivate the opinions in
this case? Which Justices in particular? Is there a countervailing fear of harms that might
come about if the requirements for patentable subject matter were more narrowly drawn?
PROBLEM 17-1
For the purposes of this problem we are taking today’s jurisprudence on
patentable subject matter back to the 1950’s. Assume for these purposes Ray Kroc,
who made McDonalds the success it is, is the first to realize that the Eisenhower
freeways will transform America. People will be moving at high speed, in unfamiliar
terrain, on a highway that separates them physically from the normal cognitive cues
one gets about the type or quality of a restaurant. Kroc lays out a master plan that
involves highly franchised food that will taste exactly the same anywhere in the
country, thus freeing drivers from the fear of culinary regret (or surprised delight). He
applies the logic of the industrial assembly line to the food preparation process,
speeding it up. He pioneers the use of huge, colorful billboards that can easily be
recognized at 60mph. Assume that these are the key innovations that go into “fast
food.”
As a matter of patentable subject matter, can Kroc patent the fast food business
method described above?
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intern’l
134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)
THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a
concurring opinion, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined.
Justice THOMAS, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The patents at issue in this case disclose a computer-implemented scheme for
mitigating “settlement risk” (i.e., the risk that only one party to a financial transaction will
pay what it owes) by using a third-party intermediary. The question presented is whether